Search This Blog

Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Growing Support To Cut Third Year Of Law School

It's a legal education reform idea that's been around for years: cut law school from three years to two.

Last week the idea picked up steam when President Obama announced that he thinks cutting the third year of law school is a good idea.

"He questioned the utility of a third year of classes and suggested that students use their final two semesters to gain work experience. 'In the first two years, young people are learning in the classroom,' Mr. Obama said. 'The third year, they’d be better off clerking or practicing in a firm even if they weren’t getting paid that much, but that step alone would reduce the costs for the student.'"

Obama made these remarks during his tour on college affordability. He has proposed tying financial aid to the performance metrics of the school. Obama wants to rein "in rising tuition costs by creating a system to rate colleges and eventually tie federal student aid to the institutions' performance. The president called for rating colleges before the 2015 school year on measures such as affordability and graduation rates—'metrics like how much debt does the average student leave with, how easy is it to pay off, how many students graduate on time, how well do those graduates do in the workforce.'"

There is a definite need to rein in the costs of tuition for law schools. Many law schools currently require their students to fulfill an internship requirement during the students' third year, but the students generally have to pay the law school tuition for the internship credits. So not only are the students working for free, they have to pay their law school a hefty sum to do so. In that regard, it makes sense to cut the curriculum to two years and leave the third year for practical work experience.

But this also means that the work experience needs to be meaningful enough to warrant missing out on classes. In my own experience, I took many great classes during my third year. Classes that I find essential to the practice of law. For example, when I took a pretrial skills class during 3L, the professor taught the process of client interviewing, filing a complaint, discovery, writing motions, and client communication in a methodical, effective way. I then used those skills to work for a solo practitioner and work in a legal clinic. While I was getting 'real world' experience, the process was not laid out in a sensible manner. I would walk into the office and be told to write a motion. If I hadn't taken the pretrial skills class, I would not have understood where the motion fit into the overall process. On the flipside, I could have gained that experience elsewhere if a law firm or practitioner had the mind to teach me the overall process, which requires more time and potential lost billable hours.

In a Letter to the Editor response, one attorney wrote, "[h]ere is my experience, based on 30 years as a lawyer working with scores of students. Compared with second-year students, third-year students stand out. They know more. They analyze legal issues better. They conduct themselves more professionally. My counterproposal is this: Make law school four years."

It's a contentious issue, no doubt. As the ABA continues to contemplate innovation and change in legal education, this might be an area that they are willing to finally consider.

The current version of Standard 601(3)(a) was developed during the Comprehensive Review as a method of involving a law library in the process of strategic planning required of a law school. It was envisioned that the planning and assessment taking place for a law school (under what was then Standard 203) would incorporate the work done by the library under this new Standard. To ensure that incorporation, it was decided that a written assessment should be completed by the library. However, when the requirement for strategic planning for a law school was removed during a later phase of the Comprehensive Review, no change was made to the new Standard 601. As a result, the library community has been left…

Law libraries are in the information business. To act as superior guides to this information, we must also be in the people business. We must be concerned with the people who seek our information. And we must be concerned with the people who guide those seekers to the information (i.e., our staff).

Contrary to popular belief, it's not easy to be a staff person in the rigid hierarchy of an academic law library. Particularly at a time when law libraries are facing increased budget pressures that require staff to do much more with much less. This is especially challenging with longtime staff who have seen their jobs change dramatically since they were hired. Many of these folks were not formally trained in librarianship, and they may be resistant to the flexibility needed in today's law library.

Given these challenges, how do we motivate our staff to be the very best guides to our information?

To that end, there was an enlightening program at the AALL Annual Conference in 2013 t…

As we further consider how to train future lawyers for the Algorithmic Society and develop the quality of thinking, listening, relating, collaborating, and learning that will define smartness in this new age, law schools must reach beyond their storied walls.

In law, we must got beyond talking about algorithmic implications to actually help shape algorithmic performance. We need lawyers and programmers to work together to create a sound "machine learning corpus." There's potential for an entirely new subfield to emerge if given the right support. With many law school attached to major research universities, it's a great place to start this cross-pollination and interdisciplinary work.

This type of interdisciplinary work would help to satisfy the career aspirations of advanced-degree seekers but also the wishes of many college presidents, deans, and faculty members who see an interdisciplinary professional education as a path to greater relevance, higher enrollments,…